Melissa Schlegel: Using Map Your Hazards! in Natural Disasters and Environmental Geology at the College of Western Idaho
About this Course
An introductory geology natural hazards course.
17–32
students
Two 75-minute lecture
sessions
One 105-minute lab
weekly
Community college
Syllabus for first pilot (Microsoft Word 117kB Jul1 14)
Syllabus for second pilot (Microsoft Word 120kB Jul1 14)
The course title is Natural Disasters and Environmental Geology. As a class, we examine 1) the interaction between modern society and Earth processes that are hazardous (e.g. volcanoes, flooding, climate change, etc.), 2) how communities and individuals can limit the extent of damage from these hazards, and 3) how society is influencing the frequency and magnitude of many natural hazards. In addition, we discuss how natural hazards benefit our society and our environment.
Course Goals and Content
- Understand basic meteorological principles and how they affect your everyday life (for example, why do we have weather? How does weather affect the many aspects of human activity?).
- Discuss and demonstrate how scientists solve problems in meteorology (how do meteorologists make weather observations? Or a weather forecast?).
- Be able to identify cause-and-effect relationships, draw conclusions from evidence, and synthesize information to understand the current weather and climate situation.
- Explain how the science of meteorology developed from a historical perspective.
- Be able to record and interpret your own weather observations.
- Be able to analyze and interpret weather data in order to anticipate what will happen in the future.
- Understand the impacts of both short- and long-term climate changes on society.
- Know how to use some of the quantitative methods needed to interpret data.
Course Content
This course is an approved general education core class, and meets the following core objectives for the college:
- Critical thinking — the ability to think using analysis, synthesis, evaluation, problem solving, judgment, and the creative process
- Communication — the ability to develop, support, and appropriately communicate ideas through speech, writing, performance, or visual media
- Quantitative reasoning — the ability to calculate, measure, analyze data
- Information literacy — the ability to locate, understand, assess, and synthesize information in a technologically-driven society
- Personal responsibility — the ability to understand and manage self, to function effectively in social and professional environments, and to make reasoned judgments based on an understanding of the diversity of the world community
This course also meets the following departmental objectives:
- Understand the fundamental concepts of geology including plate tectonics, Earth as a system, and other operative processes.
- Describe and understand the physical forces responsible for various types of geologic hazard including: volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, tsunami, earthquakes, floods.
- Assess the risk of a certain area based on data from maps and other sources.
- Understand the causes (including Earth processes, other natural hazards, and humans) and possible mitigation strategies of various natural hazards that occur globally, with focus on the western United States.
- Understand relationships between natural hazards and natural resources such as ore deposits, fossil fuels, soils, and drinking water; and understand environmental concerns related to use of these resources.
- Investigate the water cycle and its effects on natural hazards.
- Highlight the relationship of natural hazards to both our global socio-political and environmental climate.
A Success Story in Building Student Engagement
My course is an introductory geology natural hazards course, which has been previously taught using lecture, discussion, laboratory exercises, a field trip and exams. Though the course is usually engaging to most of the students, the Map Your Hazards! Module applied key concepts about natural hazards to our community. These concepts included knowledge, preparation, and identifying risk of natural hazards. Students were surprised to see the location of high-risk areas, and enjoyed imagining areas that would be "toasted" if a severe hazard did occur. In addition, students were excited to form and investigate research questions with data that they collected from their friends and family in the local community, and were amazed at the general lack of knowledge, preparedness and risk perception of natural hazards in our community.
As students synthesized the risk map and survey data to make preparedness recommendations for a particular stakeholder, many students voiced unsolicited ideas (such as making and distributing pamphlets) on how to disseminate the information and recommendations from the Map Your Hazards! Module to actual stakeholders in our community, which demonstrated their excitement about the module and that they understood the impact natural hazards can have on our communities!
My Experience Teaching with InTeGrate Materials
I modified the module materials for both pilot courses by 1) assigning different point values for assignments, 2) taking more time in class for group assignments, 3) making the module entirely group work, and 4) skipping some of the instructional PowerPoint presentations (like the US Hazard Maps in favor of the local Ada County Hazard Vulnerability Analysis).
Relationship of InTeGrate Materials to My Course
In the first module pilot I taught the module during the last two and a half weeks of lecture of the 15-week course (5 lecture sessions). We completed Unit 1 (creating the risk map) over two lecture sessions, Unit 2 (survey data analysis) over one and a half lecture sessions, and Unit 3 (preparation and presentations) over one and a half lecture sessions.
In the second module pilot I taught the module during six laboratory sessions over the 15-week course. We completed Unit 1 (creating the risk map) over two lab sessions near the beginning of the course, Unit 2 (survey data analysis) over two laboratory sessions near the middle of the course, and Unit 3 (preparation and presentations) over two laboratory sessions at the end of the course.
Topics introduced as part of the course but also used in the module included natural hazards, natural disasters and catastrophes, risk, and preparedness and mitigation.
In both pilots, the module was often informally referenced by me and occasionally by students to highlight the relevance of a topic covered in lecture or laboratory session. These references often occurred when we discussed personal and community preparedness for specific hazards. A lot of preparedness seems common sense (like do not buy houses built in a flood plain, or pull off the highway as far as you can in a hail storm), but we often referenced the survey and the hazard mapping to prove that many educated people are not prepared to handle common local natural hazards (so take the information seriously and it may save your life!).
At the beginning of the module, I used the Introduction to the Module as an orientation, went over the Student Road Map, and immediately assigned taking and distributing the survey (the data is used in Unit 2). The class also completed the short Pre-module Assessment.
Unit 1 — Create a risk map
- Quickly went over the PowerPoint files: Introduction to Natural Hazards, Introduction to Risk and Vulnerability, Introduction to Credible Data Interpretation. As a class we discussed natural hazards, vulnerability, preparedness, risk and risk perception.
- Excluded PowerPoint file US Hazard Maps in favor of using the local Ada County Hazard Vulnerability Analysis to determine top three natural hazards in our area.
- Went over Unit 1 Worksheet Instructions and Unit 1 Rubric.
- Showed students an example of a "good" base map, and helped them choose their own base maps.
- As students created their risk maps, I demonstrated on the overhead projector how to use PowerPoint (cut, paste, shapes, etc.).
- For the first module pilot, we took two 75-minute lecture sessions. For the second module pilot, we took two 105-minute laboratory sessions plus extra time after finishing shorter laboratory activities. In comparison of the two pilot courses, I did not find a difference in the students' risk map quality, but I did find that the students were less stressed with more time.
- Instructor Hint: To emphasize credible data, have students give you files that include their actual sources and screen shots of online maps (not just web addresses).
Unit 2 — Analyze survey data
- Went over Unit 2 Worksheet Instructions, Unit 2 Rubric A and Unit 2 Rubric B.
- Handed out the four different graph packets to groups (see file for instructions on how to create graph packets), let each group categorize graphs into "knowledge," "preparedness," "risk perception," or some combination, and helped each group develop a research question and create an appropriate graph to answer their research question.
- Discussed survey results as each group presented their categorizations, research question and accompanying graph to the class.
- Handed out entire graph packet, and students answered the survey questions found in the Unit 2 Worksheet Instructions. In the first module pilot, students answered the questions individually as homework. In the second module pilot, students answered the questions in their laboratory groups during the laboratory session. In comparison of the two pilot courses, I did not find a difference in the overall quality of students' answers to the survey questions. However, when the students answered the survey questions individually, their answers were very similar by group, which made for a lot of redundant grading.
- For the first module pilot, we took one and a half 75-minute lecture sessions. For the second module pilot, we took two 105-minute laboratory sessions. In comparison of the two pilot courses, in the second pilot course the students took time to develop research questions they were interested in, whereas in the first pilot course I quickly guided groups to a research question I thought they might be interested in.
- Instructor Hint: Make sure every student in each group has a copy of the completed survey question worksheets, research question and accompanying graph. (I was surprised by how often those items are kept by the one person in the group who drops out of the class.)
Unit 3 — Present findings to a stakeholder
- Went over Introduction to Stakeholders, Unit 3 Worksheet Instructions, Presenting Tips and Unit 3 Rubric.
- Let groups pick a stakeholder from a list of examples — though I assigned "Emergency Responders" to the group I thought would do the most thorough job.
- Gave students time in-class to prepare and practice presentations before they formally presented in front of the class.
- In the first module pilot, we did not have enough time to practice presentations with a peer group, but they presented to an emergency manager for wildfires. In the second module pilot, we did not go over the Introduction to Stakeholders (because I forgot the file), but we did discuss the information. In comparison of the two pilot courses, I did not find a difference in the students' presentation quality, but I did find that the students benefited from a guest member. The guest helped them understand that knowledge, preparedness, and risk perception of natural hazards are serious societal issues that consume professional careers and affect their community.
- For the first module pilot, we took one and a half 75-minute lecture sessions. For the second module pilot, we took two 105-minute laboratory sessions. In comparison of the two pilot courses, I did not find a difference in the students' presentation quality, but I did find that the students were less stressed with more time.
- Instructor Hint: Find representatives of the assigned stakeholders to come into your class for the presentations. Though they make the students extremely nervous, the guests definitely help students understand that their work is interesting and important to members of the community.
Following the presentations, the class completed the short Post-module Assessment and Reflection Survey.
Assessments
I gave students the rubrics before they started the assignments. Students thought the module assessments were fair and easy to understand. For the second module pilot each unit rubric was modified to total 20 points (80 points for the entire module) because each laboratory session was worth 20 points.
Assessments description:
- Pre-module Assessment (included in Unit 1 Rubric): Multiple-choice quiz for students to demonstrate their understanding of natural hazards, vulnerability, and risk perception at the beginning of the module.
- Unit 1 Rubric: Used to grade student understanding of location of natural hazards and community vulnerabilities as related to levels of risk for different areas in their communities.
- Unit 2 Rubric A: Used to grade group understanding of survey data from their graph packet.
- Unit 2 Rubric B: Used to grade student understanding of survey data from entire graph set.
- Unit 3 Rubric: Used to grade group application of Units 1 and 2 for a specific stakeholder by making appropriate and reasonable suggestions for increased community preparedness based on locations of higher risk and the survey data.
- Post-module Assessment (included in Unit 3 Rubric): Multiple-choice and short-answer quiz for students to demonstrate their understanding of natural hazards, vulnerability, and risk perception at the end of the module.
- Reflection Questions (included in Unit 3 Rubric): Opinion survey about the module to assess the students' experience. (See 'Student Responses' below for results).
The following are questions from the Reflection Questions for Geoscience Courses, with percentage of student responses (43 total responses).
- The risk perception surveys and assessments allowed me to apply and reinforce material I had learned earlier in the class:
- Strongly agree —16%
- Agree — 70%
- Disagree — 12%
- Strongly disagree — 2%
- The Map Your Hazards! Module enhanced my awareness of regional natural hazards:
- Strongly agree — 23%
- Agree — 72%
- Disagree — 2%
- Strongly disagree — 2%
The following question is from the Reflection Questions for Geoscience Courses, with six representative student responses.
- Which parts of the module enhanced your learning experience? Why?
- The mapping part. Seeing which areas are affected, and which areas are at the greatest risk.
- Learning where vulnerable places are.
- I liked looking at all the surveys and percentage results. It was interesting to see what people really perceive as risk.
- The risk perception survey, because it showed how low our perception really is to a hazard in our area.
- The presentations provided insight on what the community needs to do to be safer.
- Integrating the hypothesis all together with the risk map and then making it relevant to a segment of the population.
Outcomes
I teach a 100-level course at a community college, but sometimes I find that my personal expectations are more fit for a graduate level class. For example, I expected students to 1) become experts in the location of the top three natural hazards in their area, 2) be surprised and excited about the results and implications of the natural hazards perception data they collected from friends and family, and 3) make novel and useful recommendations for improving community preparedness. These expectations are high for an introductory course, but they were met in part by most of my students, which is pretty good!
Explore other InTeGrate Instructor Stories
Learn More
Hide
Download
Download a zip file that includes all the web pages and downloadable files from the instructor's materials
